I saw it yesterday, and I loved it. I didn't know Chris Pine could sing! I liked that false ending, where it looked as if the story is headed for happily-ever-after but then it veers off into even darker fantasy. I couldn't always understand what Jack was singing, but everybody else came through loud and clear.

We went yesterday too. Evidently Emily Blunt has never sung in public before, just like Chris Pine. Anna Kendrick was another surprise. The only other thing I've seen her do is Up in the Air, quite different from her role as Cinderella. I think they were all just splendid.

I never saw Into the Woods on the stage, so I have nothing to compare the movie to and I thought the movie was just dandy. But people who are familiar with the original version are grumbling about the cuts, and there's been criticism of Meryl Streep's performance as the Witch. Evidently in the stage production, there was some pathos in the Witch's role. As I understand it, the audience never sympathizes with the Witch but does come to understand her and perhaps feel pity. Streep's Witch is a cartoon witch (and a very good cartoon witch she is), but that's not how the role was originally conceived.

For me, the high point of the movie was "Agony" -- the duet sung by the two princes. Here we have two young men, brothers, basically in accord, singing of their two ladyloves -- but they still can't refrain from jockeying for position in their two-man hierarchy. Delicious.

A little cinematic synchronicity: two new movies about male British geniuses. The Theory of Everything (Stephen Hawking) and The Imitation Game (Alan Turing) feature stellar performances from the two leads, Eddie Redmayne and Benedict Cumberbatch, both of whom have been nominated for Golden Globes and will probably get Oscar nods in a couple of weeks as well. IMO, the Hawking movie is the better of the two, but only slightly.

Yes, that's it. Some of the characters don't even have names; they're identified and defined by the roles they play in the world of the story -- the Baker, the Prince, etc. But these characters step outside their conventional roles and do things that are not necessarily expected of bakers and princes and the like. Little Red Riding Hood's basket of goodies she's taking to Granny are all conned out of the Baker's Wife or outright stolen, and the girl eats most of them before she ever gets to Granny's house. The Baker's Wife and Cinderella's Prince have a little smoochfest when no one is looking. The Baker himself -- an ordinary, confused and frightened man -- turns out to be a hero in his own modest way.

But the Witch stays within the boundaries of her conventional role; she's evil and powerful from start to finish. We may have gotten a hint of more complex behavior from the Rapunzel scenes. The Witch may have developed motherly feelings for the young girl. That's just a guess; we're not really shown enough to know for certain and there's no follow-up. Streep could perform only the material she was given to perform, and she did quite well with it. But I am curious about the missing bits.

Well, I've seen it now, and I agree with everything that's been said, both pro and con! The movie has layers, and I'm not sure I caught everything in one go-round. Anna Kendrick has more talent than she knows what to do with. The only thing that bothered me wasn't in the movie but in the audience...the number of small children that had been brought by their parents. This is ADULT fantasy, folks.

Have not seen the film yet but I do remember the stage version years ago and it was definitely NOT something I would take a child under, say 14 (PG14 is probably a good fit if those categories still exist).